sisu

Darwin and the clueless left: It was all a misunderstanding

"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection," wrote Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (full text available online here).

It was all a misunderstanding. Charles Darwin called the process of nonrandom elimination of species that he hypothesized from years of field observation "natural selection." It totally works for us with both nature and human nature, but Darwin's flamboyant philosopher friend Herbert Spencer's memorable if misleading "survival of the fittest" survived the winnowing process of cultural evolution to become the meme of choice for generations of elitists who knew little about the scientific method nor the origin of species but all about what was best for us little people out here. Enter stage right Angelo M. Codevilla's American Spectator tour de force "America's Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution":

By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called "all men are created equal" "a self-evident lie," much of America's educated class had already absorbed the "scientific" notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class's religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

You must read the whole thing, of course. No mention of the Gramscian march through the institutions, but it touches deeply upon the ur-theme of this blog, the importance of being noticed. In our view it makes the world go 'round. Codevilla nails it:

For our ruling class, identity always trumps.

Just ask Northeast Corridor Fuddy Duddy Peggy Noonan. What's true for Beltway types is true for all mankind, only more so given the stakes, as Codevilla explains:

Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts.

Yes you, Mitt Romney, for enabling an aide to diss Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin as "not a serious human being." Your days are numbered.

Crossposted at Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

"Human nature is predictable and thus tragic"

Porkulus for Two. It's what's for dinner, the newest entrée from our Cold Turkey Cookbook Experimental Kitchens. Check out the glorious pinkish ribbon of fat around the edge. President Obama, Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi, eat your "earmark-free" hearts out. See below* for recipe.

"If not [the conservative], who will say that life is not fair, that human nature is predictable and thus tragic, that in our brief corporal lives we can guarantee an equality of rough opportunity but hardly mandate an equality of absolute result — since we are mere mortals, not gods?" asks Victor Davis Hanson rhetorically, explaining for those who do not study history why "the pillar of conservatism is fiscal responsibility":

Balancing budgets and saying no to always expanding government, first, is a moral issue. Just as the individual does not borrow from others to satisfy his own appetite, does not consume what he does not earn, so too government should not spend what the nation has not produced. The conservative, as the custodian of ancient morality, must remind the populace of the thriftiness of our ancestors that explains the bounty we inherited.

"It’s much bigger news when 200 people with jobs who’ve never protested turn out, than when 20,000 of the usual suspects organized by ACORN or ANSWER march with preprinted signs," writes Professor Reynolds of the growing Tea Party Movement. We love the infantile greed of Obamaniacs implied in "Gimme, Gimme" and "I need more toys NOW!" Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his "first televised address to the nation" at CPAC yesterday: "We gotta stop treating voters like children." (Darin Morley photo from St. Louis Arch "anti-Spendulus" Tea Party that drew 1,500 protesters Friday [via Gateway Pundit])

Enter stage right the burgeoning Tea Party Movement. "If social media is a good barometer, it looks like the spending bill is stimulating the citizenry already," quips LA Times technology blogger David Sarno:

Though even a year ago it would've been a slow and difficult process to chronicle a widely scattered protest such as this, the online community is now mastering the art of high-speed media sharing, a trend that can unite geographically disparate communities via the Web. Much of the sharing is now facilitated by the fast-growing messaging site Twitter, where today the keyword "teaparty" was one of the most frequently used terms. Users sent out a flurry of updates about attendance, links to photos on Flickr and Photobucket, and videos on YouTube and other sites.

"Rick Moran thinks the 'Tea Party' protests are amateurish and disorganized. At Playboy, on the other hand, they think they’re suspiciously well-coordinated. Both are right!" says the Professor:

Of course they’re amateurish. Most of these people have never organized a protest before (hence the tendency to do things like forget bullhorns). That’s what you get at the beginning of a movement … If this keeps up (and I think it just might) the amateurishness will fade away soon enough. Then Moran will probably complain about the loss of authenticity.

The Playboy folks, meanwhile, miss two things. One is that, as reader Miles Wilson noted, these protests predate Santelli. The other is that modern technology allows a bunch of people who don’t know each other to coordinate a nationwide campaign “suspiciously” well. Somebody should write a book on that subject some day.

Glenn Reynolds, as ever, is miles ahead of the curve. We ourselves were perhaps a bit ahead of the curve in December of 2004, commenting on the ominous exodus of the Dutch middle classes then in progress in the wake of — in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's words — "clogged roads, street violence and loss of faith in Holland's once celebrated way of life." We stumbled onto that venerable post of ours yesterday while examining the entrails of our blog traffic in Site Meter stats and were horrified to hear a Dutch citizen back then "channeling" our own Rick Santelli of "Chicago Tea Party" fame:

"There's a feeling of injustice that if you do things right, if you work hard and pay your taxes, you're punished, and those who don't are rewarded. People can come and live here illegally and get payments [said Ellen, 43, a lawyer and banker who votes for the free-market Liberals]. How is that possible?"

"The Netherlands may be the canary in the mine," we noted at the time, not realizing that Obamogenic Eurostyle socialism was lumbering towards us just over the next hill in the land of the free and the home of the brave. As we wrote back then:

One would have thought that the fall of Communism had taught us once and for all — even those persons of the left still desperately clinging to their youthful embrace of Rousseau's pipe dream of the Noble Savage — that you can't fool Mother Nature. There are certain laws of human nature that will always out. Incentives are all. Reward anti-social behavior by telling the perpetrator he's a victim of society and it isn't his fault, and like any infant he'll keep on behaving badly.

As Larry Kudlow wrote the other day in "Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses":

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

Let's hope the Tea Party conservatives, VDH's "custodians of ancient morality," will remind our fellow citizens in time of "the thriftiness of our ancestors that explain the bounty we inherited."

Update: Porkulus was "a little tough," says food critic Tuck. Was an hour too long? We've gotta do some more experimenting to get it right. Update II: We sliced it for sandwiches next morning, and it was fine. That tough spot was just a gristly piece of the chop that Tuck had the misfortune to bite into.

*How to make Porkulus for Two:

Cut a side pocket into a 2-inch-thick boneless pork chop as for Pork Suzette. Instead of Shake 'n Bake, top it with a quickie version of our Apple and Sausage Stuffing: Cook one sweet sausage till browned, breaking apart with spatula, add 5 cloves chopped roasted garlic, 1/2 cup Apple-Strawberry Mix (we used Cortlands for our latest batch), 1 1/2 cups prepared stuffing (we recommend Pepperidge Farm Cornbread) and c. 1 cup chicken broth. Cook over low heat until thoroughly moistened. Heap upon pork chop and bake about one hour at 350˚ till thermometer registers 155˚, anticipating a 5˚ increase to the recommended "safe minimum" of 160˚ after removing the chop from the oven. We covered 20 minutes into the baking to prevent over-browning. Let rest a few minutes, loosely covered with foil, before serving.

The inherent corruption of unlimited government

"The reason I became a Republican [was] because I did not want to vote for Democrats. This will be the same reason when I leave the Republican Party," writes Minh-Duc of State of Flux in an eloquent personal Declaration of Independence from a party he says will have left him -- in the Reagan sense of his former party, the Democrats, having left him -- if they elect Ray Blount as House Majority Leader:

I became a Republican long before I became a US citizen, long before I came to the US, long before I was old enough to vote. I was a young boy in Vietnam listening clandestinely to Voice of America (VOA) over a short wave radio . . . There, on that old short wave radio, President Reagan gave the "evil empire" speech. Living in a Soviet vassal state, I already knew that they were evil. The inherent evil of the Soviet Union was obvious. But not a single US President had the moral courage to say [the] thing as it was -- not until Ronald Reagan. I knew then that he would be the greatest US President in my life time.

I came to the US in the last year of [the] Reagan Presidency. That was when I learned that my favorite US President is a Republican. I also learned that he favors limited governement. With the past experience with the government where I came from, limited government is a wonderful idea.

Reagan brought me into the party, Newt Gingrich made me a believer. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Conservative Revolution. Now I fear that the Revolution is dead.

We quoted Minh-Duc -- alongside Peggy Noonan and Hugh Hewitt -- here the other day in arguing the case for the Republicans to get back to their limited-government roots and reduce the source of corruption by reducing the size of government. As Minh-Duc notes:

The current leadership race for the majority leader will determine if the Republican Party is still the Party of Reagan, and that the Conservative Revolution is still alive. Roy Blunt is cut from the same cloth as Tom Delay. He is an opportunistic politician who speaks of small government but funds big government.

But don't look for the Republican leadership to lose much sleep over the inherent corruption of unlimited government. They've got too much "invested" -- to use Paul Chesser's word in his must-read American Spectator article, "It's Not Just Pork" [via Mark Tapscott] -- in the status quo.

A clamor against special appropriations -- pushed in Congress by House Majority Leader candidates John Shadegg of Arizona and John Boehner of Ohio -- is growing, and certainly promising. But while the focus is on pork, attention should also be paid to two other insidious products of meddlesome government: economic development incentives and eminent domain . . .

"Invest" is the favorite buzzword of politicians -- both Democrat and Republican -- who like to use other people's money to take chances in risky businesses. The results are often as scandalous as anything Abramoff has perpetrated.

As is the Supreme Court-endorsed practice of employing eminent domain to give private property to developers, also in the name of economic development . . .

What it represents is a pervasive attitude throughout government, and extending through both political parties, that there are no rights of the people other than those granted by those in political power. Local and state government, with eminent domain and economic incentives, merely represent the farm system that leads to the big-time pork playground.

Will our Porkbuster allies in Congress, together with a new Supreme Court less inclined to discover new "rights" in a "living Constitution," be able to counter what Patrick Chisholm in the Christian Science Monitor calls the insidious "triumph of the redistributionist left."? Or is it too late? Did the commies, via "Stalin's meme war" -- as  Eric  S. Raymond [via InstaPundit] wrote yesterday -- win our citizens' hearts and minds after all?:

So: we know the Soviets aimed to apply Gramscian subversion as a war weapon against the West, we know they believed themselves to have succeeded in significant ways, and the dominant cultures of the entertainment industry, the press, and academia behave today precisely as we would expect if they had succeeded in those ways (that is, they sneer at traditional values and patriotism and exhibit pervasive left-wing and anti-American bias)

Check out our The Tocquevillians Strike Back for more about Marxist intellectual and politician Antonio Gramsci's role as the father of today's pervasive and debilitating political correctness. As the title of that post suggests, we're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take this any more.

Technorati tags:  Porkbusters, Peggy Noonan, Hugh Hewitt, John Shadegg, John Boehner

'The problem is money, and the solution is money"

Sasheen Littlefeather [guess which one in the image above] at Marlon Brando's behest ambushed "The" Academy Awards way back in the dark ages of 1973, blindsiding the gallantly dignified Roger Moore and the elegantly indulgent Liv Ullman with her disingenuous me-victim-you-oppressor assault in what turned out to be one of the first salvos in the Culture Wars that continue to escalate thirty years later.

"The problem is money, and the solution is money," wrote Minh-Duc of State of Flux the other day in a post we'd been meaning to highlight here for its good sense and clear-eyed refusal to take prisoners. Peggy Noonan's tour de force approaching the same topic from a slightly different angle in Opinion Journal Thursday called it to mind. First, Minh-Duc:

More money available to government leads to more corruption. Less money available to the government leads to less corruption. The only long term solution to corruption in government is limited government. We must reduce the source of corruption by reduce the amount of money available to the government.

Leave it to a Vietnamese American who knows the difference between a "fear society" and a free society, to tell it like it is. So does the Divine Miss N in her WSJ "Thoughts on the decline of the liberal media monopoly and the future of the GOP":

Eleven years ago the Democrats lost control of Congress. Then they lost the presidency. But just as important, maybe more enduringly important, they lost their monopoly on the means of information in America. They lost control of the pipeline. Or rather there are now many pipelines, and many ways to use the information they carry.

Peggy was on a roll:

And the end of the monopoly of course isn't only in the news, it's in all media. The other night George Clooney, that beautiful airhead, made a Golden Globe speech in which he made an off-color reference to Jack Abramoff. The audience seemed confused, as people apparently often are when George Clooney speaks. Once, his remark would have been news. Once, Marlon Brando stopped the country in its tracks when he sent Sacheen Littlefeather to make his speech at the Academy Awards.

We remember that awful moment -- incomprehensible at the time -- when Marlon Brando ambushed the previously a-political Academy Awards ceremony to promote an obscure personal political cause no one out here in Middle America had ever heard of.  At the time, it was totally annoying but didn't seem like much, and we moved on to a life of hard work, hard play and the pursuit of happiness. As we look back, though, it begins to sound like an early shot across our bow in the Culture Wars. Here's where Peggy Noonan's perfect prose intersects with Minh-Duc's cut to the chase:

More than ever, the Republican Party -- the party ultimately helped by the end of the old monopoly and the reformation of news media -- must be a good party, a decent one, and help our country. That it regain a sense of its historic mission . . . That it return to basic principles on spending, regulation and state authority. That it question a foreign policy that often seems at once dreamy and aggressive, and question, too, an overreaching on immigration policy that seems composed in equal parts of naiveté and cynicism. That its representatives admit that lunching with lobbyists is not the problem; failing to oppose the growth of government -- so huge that no one, really no one, knows what is in its budget -- is. That they reduce the size and power of government. That they help our country.

Amongst the three Republicans now vying for House Majority Leader, Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, a freshman in Newt Ginrich's "Contract with America" Class of 1994 -- check out Hugh Hewitt's interview for the Congressman in his own words -- sounds the most promising:

Hugh Hewitt: Will you introduce and support a proposal to require all earmarks be identified by the name of the requesting member?

John Shadegg: I think my answer to that question is yes. I haven't given . . . I have not formed my specific earmark proposal, but we cannot have earmarks put in where you do not know who they benefit, or where you do not know why they're being done, and where they can't be debated. My understanding is that most . . . well, many earmarks, at least the ones that are abusive, are snuck in, in the dark of night, often by, quite frankly, some powerful members, and rank and file members don't even know about them.

PorkBusters need apply, not to mention TTLB's "Appeal to center-right bloggers."

Technorati tags:  Peggy Noonan, John Shadegg, Hugh Hewitt, Shasheen Littlefeather

"Somehow I'm guessing you'll have a response to this"

Early-morning light reflected -- albedo, blogged here -- from the window of a house on the west side of the street onto this one on the east side of the street (turned on its side for artistic reasons) in Newburport Sunday is our favorite kind of light. Is that why Crystal Patterson's sunny prose, a refined reflection of her boss's gratuitously scorching spoutings, is so much more to our liking than Senator Kennedy's own reason-blinding rhetoric?

"If we were talking about budget cuts that weren't necessitated by huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the cuts would be easier to understand," emails the sparkling Crystal Patterson of Senator Kennedy's office. It's a party line based upon a faulty understanding of economics in our view. Rather than diminishing the federal pot, tax cuts "for the wealthy" translate to more business and more tax income, and the way to balance things is to cut spending, but try telling that to a "progressive." As a member of the PorkBusters team, we do appreciate the personal touch, though, big time:

I wanted to let you know we are not going to support Senator Coburn and the Fiscal Responsibility Team on this issue.  Why?  There are a couple of reasons.  First, many of the cuts are to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and student loan programs.

Yes, Crystal, but what about the specific one we PorkBusters identify ourselves with, diversion of the "bridge-to-nowhere" funding up north in Alaska to restoring that bridge across Lake Pontchartrain way down yonder in New Orleans?

Some of the cuts also take away from programs that enforce child support payments from deadbeat parents.

Wait a sec while we turn down the violins here. Our refuge-of-scoundrels alert always goes off at the evocation by polititians of "the children."

I know you are interested in cutting pork, but I'm very hard-pressed to believe that these are the first programs that should be cut -- especially considering that the Republicans are looking to pass another $73 billion in tax cuts next week.  The Fiscal Responsibility Team is only responsible if responsible is defined as "actively seeking to finance tax cuts on the backs of the poor and underprivileged."  The reason why we are even having talks of budget cuts is because of the massive tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the most wealthy among us.

Crystal is a delightful correspondent -- smooth and blog savvy -- and we salute our senior Senator for having a person of her caliber on his team.  She continues: 

I think the Porkbusters idea is a good one -- and if we were talking about budget cuts that weren't necessitated by huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the cuts would be easier to understand. Transparency is good, especially when we're talking about taxes and government spending. I'm glad you got in touch (somehow I'm guessing you'll have a response to this ;) ), and I look forward to talking to you more in the future.

How can someone so smart -- and so fun and funny -- be so economically illiterate? We guess it comes with the territory.

Technorati tags:  porkbusters, senator coburn, fiscal responsibility team

Senator Kennedy is firmly in the "Neutral/Undecided" column

"I am making phone calls on this right now," writes our beloved Crystal Patterson of tedkennedy.com, Internet Operations Manager of Kennedy for Senate. She's as cute and smart as a button, the light of our local-politicians'-foot-to-the-fire life, so we can never stay angry with her for long, but hey, little gal, what's the story? That was 9:21 this morning, and we haven't heard a word from you since re where your boss, the senior senator from Taxachusetts, stands on Senator Tom Coburn's proposed "offset package" aimed at identifying budget cuts to pay for hurricane relief, announced a week ago today.  We just checked in at PorkBusters Central only to learn -- much to our non surprise -- that Senator Kennedy is firmly in the "Neutral / Undecided" column. Still, we would have preferred to have been told to our face by the likes of you. Will you confirm that that's where he "stands"?

"The pig is starting to look worried"

"Here's a snazzy new PorkBusters graphic by Karl Egenberger," writes InstaPundit. "Feel free to use it. Note that the pig is starting to look worried."

"Last week, [Senator Tom] Coburn and six other Senators released an 'offset package' aimed at identifying budget cuts to pay for hurricane relief," writes New Zealand Bear, announcing a shift in PorkBusters' focus from raising awareness of pork to calling attention to specific legislation that actually starts eliminating pork:

The first bill that we are focusing on is sponsored by seven Senators who have styled themselves the "Fiscal Responsibility Team": Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Lindsey Graham, John McCain [Gak], and John Sununu.

I had the pleasure of being invited to a conference call with Senator Coburn last week [blogged here]. I was impressed by what appeared to me to be his sincere desire to confront the idiocy involved in our current fiscal policies, even if it meant pissing off his fellow Senators.

The key provision in the bill for our purposes is that it would elminate all "offsets" (i.e., pork) in the highway bill --- wiping away a vast chunk of pork in a single stroke.

Here's where we bloggers and our readers come in.

The Porkbusters page at TTLB will now show, state by state, which Senators have signed on in support of this proposal, and which are opposing it. As before, we are encouraging bloggers and blog-readers to contact their Senators to find out their positions and report back to us.

Off to the phones again.  Last time we talked with Will Johnson of Senator Kerry's Main District Office in Boston -- October 20 -- re how his boss would vote on one of Coburn's amendments then about to be voted upon that would have redirected bridge funding from Alaska to New Orleans, the aide told us Senator Kerry "may not have made up his mind yet" on that one, but he, Will Johnson, would be certain to call us as soon as he found out.  We're still waiting for that call. Similar story with Tom Crohan of Senator Kennedy's Main District Office, who promised to call back as soon as he knew his boss's decision. The vote occurred later that day, and Coburn's amendments were overwhelmingly voted down. We're 100% sure how our own Taxachusetts Senators will vote, but let's see if we can get their frontmen to come right out and say so. 'Will update as soon as we get word. All PorkBusting all the time here. We support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package!

Technorati tags:  porkbusters, senator coburn, fiscal responsibility team

Update: Senator Kerry still hasn't made up his mind, but when we teased aide Will Johnson during a phone conversation this afternoon that we're pretty sure how his boss will vote, he acknowledged "I think that's going to be the case."  Close enough to put him down as one of the "Opposing Senators" on TTLB's Senate Responses page? We think so.

Update:  We love this man's way with words.

"The white house is beginning to feel the heat"

"It's a war of attrition, not a quick hit," writes Glenn Reynolds, hot off "an interesting conference call with Sen. Coburn and several other bloggers":

We discussed a lot of ways to increase transparency in funding bills, and it was clear that (1) the White House is beginning to feel the heat; and (2) this will be going on over the next year.

"One of the suggestions from the bloggers (New Zealand Bear Mark Tapscott -- thanks to Kevin Aylward of Wizbang for the update) was that the Senator use the 'porkbuster' term," adds Wizbang:

It was noted that the word "earmark," while technically accurate, didn't have the same resonance . . . One of the key points discussed is how 'sunshine' is the enemy of pork barrel earmark spending. The process has been deliberately gamed by Congress to provide as little light on last minute changes, congressional earmarks, and other sundry spending tricks. As the "Bridge To Nowhere" episode showed, when pork-filled projects attached onto large appropriation bills are spotlighted, it becomes very uncomfortable for legislators to stand up and fight for boondoggles.

"I took [Sen. Coburn's] message to the blogosphere to be: 'Those of us in the Senate who are serious about cutting spending need the blogosphere's help to make it happen,'" reports John Hawkins of Right Wing News:

So, if you're a blogger looking to hammer away on government spending, hit it hard!

"The Coburn amendments were decisively voted down, but markers were laid down in the process, and millions of Americans were watching closely as senators cast their votes on the proposals," observes Mark of Tapscott's Copy Desk:

As a result, those votes may well have more to do with the future career prospects of a number of senators who opposed Coburn than any of them, or the mainstream media, now realize.

Let's hope so. We're on the case as a fellow PorkBuster trying to put our squealing Taxachusetts troughsmen's trotters to the fire, but beyond what we can do, we're most encouraged by Glenn Reynolds's impression that "the White House is beginning to feel the heat."

Technorati tags:  porkbusters, senator coburn

Senator Kerry "may not have made up his mind yet"

Unlike Senator Kerry, who "may not have made up his mind yet" about Coburn Amendment #2085 to H.R. 3058, the Transportation appropriations biill, Baby Cakes knows his mind and stands on principle. Note slightly matted ruff still drying from latest "Nature's Miracle" Skunk Odor Remover treatment.

"When the [Coburn] Amendment is considered, I'll tell you how he votes," promised Will Johnson of Senator Kerry's Main District Office in Boston after a little nudging on our part during a brief phone conversation early this afternoon. H.R. 3058 -- the Treasury, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill -- was on the Senate floor, he reported, but when we asked Mr. Johnson where his boss stood on the Coburn Amendment -- blogged here -- he protested that there were, fergossake, 137 amendments, and Kerry "may not have made up his mind yet" on this particular one. 'Reminds us of RI Sen. Chaffee's and Reed's response to blogger Caroll Andrew Morse, as reported by InstaPundit:

The staffers were very polite and professional, but both offices informed me they couldn’t share the Senator’s position until after the vote was taken.

Is this really how deliberative democracy is supposed to work? Aren’t public officials supposed to make their positions on issues, well, public.

Tom Crohan of Senator Kennedy's Main District Office, meanwhile, didn't seem to have heard of the Coburn Amendment but offered nonethless that "I imagine he will vote for it." Probably not, but he, too, took our name and number and promised to call back. We don't expect the Senators of Taxachusetts to prefer pork busting to raising taxes "on the wealthy" but just wanted something for the record.  Too much to ask of our elected officials?

Update:  This just in from Mark Tapscott's Copy Desk [via InstaPundit]: "Senate Overwhelmingly Rejects Three Coburn Anti-Pork Amendments." Since one of those amendments was an animal shelter in Westerly, RI, we are torn.  Still no word yet on that bridge too far, which -- Coburn's office emails InstaPundit -- is "coming up shortly."

Update II:  In prompt reply to an email we sent earlier today, Senator Kennedy's Internet Operations Manager, Crystal Patterson -- who, we just discovered via Google, posts at Daily Kos, known among bloggers on the right right side of the aisle as Moonbat Central -- promises to let Senator Kennedy know where we stand on the Coburn Amendment and adds:

I have a call in to find out, I’ll see what I can find out for you.

Thanks so much, Crystal.  We can't wait to hear.

"They need to be asked"

The view from here. Bulk carrier "Marybelle," sailing under the colors of Panama, unloads its cargo acoss the street at Eastern Salt as the setting sun ignites the sky in l'heure bleue shades of Monet.

"MoveOn.org is organizing its members to encourage Congress to keep federal pork projects and waste taxpayer dollars, and we need your help to counter their attack on your pocketbook," emails Drew Bond of Town Hall, urging readers to call their members of Congress and tell 'em to support the Republican Study Committee's Operation Offset:

From a “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska to a fish hatchery in Montana, your household pays $22,000 PER YEAR for federal spending and pork -- the first time spending has reached this level since World War II.  A few brave members of Congress have proposed “Operation Offset” to cover the costs of disaster relief by eliminating wasteful pork projects.

The next few days are critical to Congress’ progress cutting federal mismanagement of YOUR money and reprioritizing federal spending.  They must know their constituents are watching.

Speaking of that Alaskan "bridge to nowhere," InstaPundit calls our attention to the Coburn Amendment, filed by Senator Coburn (R-OK) yesterday to the TTHUD appropriations bill and backed by The Club for Growth, that would transfer funding from the wasteful Alaska pork project to the repair and reconstruction of the “Twin Spans” bridge in Louisiana:

It's setting the precedent whereby members of Congress go after each other's taxpayer-shafting pork projects rather than turning a blind eye and engaging in logrolling.

It seems to me that this makes it an especially good project for bloggers to get behind, and to encourage their senators to support.

I think the country is better off with transparency, and I'd like to hear any Senator who opposes this measure explain why he or she favors funding a bridge that could buy a personal jet for every inhabitant of Gravina Island, instead of spending the money on fixing ruined bridges that people actually use in Louisiana. They won't want to talk about that, of course, but they need to be asked.

Let's ask 'em. We'll be calling our Rep, Michael Capuano, first thing tomorrow about Operation Offset and then on to Senators Kennedy and Kerry to urge them to support the Coburn Amendment. We know already that all three are on the side of MoveOn's "Stop the Reverse Robin Hood Budget" initiative and wouldn't dream of cutting an ounce of pork, but it's sound civic practice to let them know where we stand, and it's good clean fun to watch their minions squirm. Click here for links to your own members of Congress, and give 'em a little taste of that PorkBusters spirit.

Update:  Favorite son Matt Margolis of Blogs for Bush invites readers to submit questions or comments he can take to the first-of-its-kind Capital Hill blogging conference with Representatives tomorrow. New Zealand Bear has set up a clearinghouse page to  highlight participating bloggers' posts.

Update II:  Mark Tapscott thinks "This could be a defining moment for America":

Mr. Smith is Back in Washington, and his name is Tom Coburn.

We like the sound of that.

Update III:  All things PorkBuster -- PLUS an InstaLanche! -- from the Master of the Blogosphere.

Technorati tag:  porkbusters